-NLMRY- At the risk of stating the obvious, I never said that those NES classics were bad games. My point was quite the reverse: that they were good games in spite of their flaws when viewed through modern eyes, and so Pokemon Red/Blue can similarly be excused on account of its age.
I didn't accuse you of saying they were bad games, I was refuting your argument that their "flaws" (the ones your prescribed) detracted from there overall design.
You said: "Well, clearly a save system
could have been put into Super Mario Bros because plenty of NES games can be saved."
I (and Vader the White) countered: The truth is Super Mario Bros. could
not be saved due to the technique requisite for saving on the NES, battery back up, not being discovered, invented, thought of, whatever.
You said (of Super Mario Bros.): "you can't run backwards..."
I argued: going back to previous screens would not enhance the game at all, and is therefore not a flaw. I want to expand upon this point a little bit. Maybe it would enhance the game if you were able to go back a screen to grab another Mushroom or Fire Flower if you had just lost your power-up, but other than that, going backwards in SMB would do nothing to enhance the experience.
To complete your sentence: "...let alone have any sort of level select or save game."
Again, I agree to a extent. It's frustrating that you start with 5 (I think) lives, 'cause it gets
hard at level 8. But that's what coins are for. The more you get, the more chances you have to complete the game. And the further you get, the less coins there are, thus increasing the difficulty. Being able to input a password (or continue a save) would lessen this difficulty curve. I feel I have to clarify again - NES games at this point
could not be saved, so that's out the window. Passwords would have served the same function, but as I argued, the game would have been too short if you could just start from world 8 when you wanted to. NES games are short, if you know them. The insane difficulty on them was for exactly this reason. They had to be hard to keep you playing.
You said: "And let's not forget those areas in Bowser's castle that looped indefinitely if you took the wrong path. Mediocre programming or necessary corner-cutting is one thing but that's just bad level
design." (bad design is what I am arguing against)
To which I replied: "Legitimate puzzles."
You said of the Legend of Zelda: "there's no large-scale sense of direction in this game at all. It's pretty much impossible for a modern gamer fresh to the game to beat this game without some kind of strategy guide due to all the cryptic bullshit going on."
If a player finds it impossible to "beat this game without some kind of strategy guide due to all the cryptic bullshit going on," then I'd say it's a bad game.
But I again tried to refute this argument, saying, essentially: there are enough cues to let the player know whether or not they are in an area they can succeed in.
I feel like you missed all of my points.